Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Congressman Boren. Clem McSpadden was a child of the Great Depression. He was a veteran of the Second World War, a 1948 graduate of Oklahoma State University, an 18-year veteran of the State Senate of Oklahoma, and 2 years in this body. The tales, the stories, the insight, the history of all those institutions that he was a part of, he was a walking, living legacy. Maybe I should put it this way: This Chamber was graced that Clem was a Member of this body for 2 years. We in Oklahoma are graced that Clem was a member of our State for 82 years. He will be missed. He will be missed. With that I yield back to his successor in the Second District of Oklahoma, Congressman Boren.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, due to higher fuel costs, the two largest utility companies in Oklahoma recently announced a monthly rate increase of $16 on average, with more increases expected this fall. This is just the latest example of how the pain at the pump is spreading to the other necessities of life. This added expense for fuel in business is being passed along to consumers, who are now being hit with a double dose of soaring prices. However, when given the opportunity to pass meaningful energy legislation, this majority has chosen to introduce the ``Bus Fares for Bureaucrats'' bill, which will spend $1.7 billion in tax revenues to reduce fares in public transportation systems. While I'm sure this will benefit the bureaucrats in D.C. who write these laws, I'm more concerned about the farmers in western Oklahoma, where there is no public transportation system to speak of. As of today, my constituents are paying upwards of $4 a gallon for gasoline to fill their cars and $4.66 a gallon for diesel to fill their tractors and trucks. Are we to tell them that they not only have to pay higher prices for gas and electricity but that now they have to subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public transportation? As long as demand continues to rise, the price for oil will continue to climb without increasing supply. The answer to this problem is clear: We must increase our domestic supply of oil by allowing the exploration of new oil reserves and by increasing the capacity of our refineries. A recent Los Angeles Times Bloomberg poll stated that 68 percent of registered voters support opening up more land for oil and gas drilling, including off the Nation's coast. It's time for this majority to start listening to the demands of the American people and to open up more land for oil exploration. It's also necessary to encourage the development of alternative energy, such as wind or nuclear power. Oklahoma is currently the number nine generator of wind power in this country, producing 689 megawatts per year. There are other States that have the potential to produce more wind power than that but that choose not to install wind turbines because they consider them unsightly. However, I guarantee you that any Oklahoma wheat farmer who earns money from both his crops and the wind turbines on his land will tell you his wind turbines are beautiful. Right now, America produces 20 percent of its energy needs from nuclear power while France produces 78 percent, 78 percent. That's 78 percent less energy they need to import from other countries. So, not only are they able to produce more than three-quarters of their electricity needs in France, they are able to do so in a clean, efficient manner with minimal harmful emissions. This leads me to my most important point. If electricity that lights your house or the gas that powers your car is produced in America, new jobs are created, and we are becoming less dependent on foreign oil. It's time for America to get back in the business of energy production. I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 5656, ``To Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels Act,'' so we can bring this essential piece of legislation to the House floor for a vote. The rising cost of gasoline is the single biggest challenge we face in this country, as every American who has been to the pump in the last few months knows, and it's time for Congress to rise to the challenge to come up with real solutions.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I come before you today to address the skyrocketing price of gas in Oklahoma, where the price for a gallon of gasoline at a station in my hometown of Cheyenne is now $3.95. This may be lower than the national average, but Oklahomans are actually paying more of their income on gas than people in areas where gas prices are higher. According to a study by Common Current, Oklahoma City is ranked last in the ability to weather an oil and gas crisis. This is evidenced by the fact that families in Oklahoma's Third District are spending between 7 and 10 percent of their income on gas. Congress has an opportunity to make sure that Americans don't have to choose between putting gas in their cars and necessities for their families through H.R. 2279, Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations Act. I ask my colleagues, support H.R. 2279. Sign the discharge petition. Bring this bill to the floor for a vote now.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto. As I told you a few days ago, not everything in this bill do I love. But the fact of the matter is, I love rural America. And production agriculture and those small towns and all those good people who live out there who work the land and raise the stock, provide the food and fiber that feeds and clothes us all. And they know that we need a comprehensive farm bill. They know how important it is that we provide the resources to meet the needs of this country. Now, 75 percent of this bill goes to the food stamp program, the feeding programs. They understand that in rural America. They want to make sure all of our fellow citizens have enough to eat. But they also know that they fight the weather, they're paying more for diesel and fertilizer and inputs than they ever have or they may ever again. But they want to raise those crops, and they want a comprehensive farm bill that provides a reasonable amount of safety net to allow them to work with their bankers and financiers. Vote to override the veto for the future of rural America.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a few brief observations about H.R. 2419, the farm bill. Now, let me preface my comments by noting that this is a representative democracy. And while I may not always agree with the actions of this body, I am obligated to vote the will of my Oklahoma constituents. My farmers and ranchers want a farm bill. They know how important it is to have a comprehensive Federal farm policy for both producers and consumers of American's food and fiber. They've watched as the majority leadership of this body ordered the cut of $300 million of direct farm commodity support. And soon they will figure out that a single--maybe earmark is not the proper phrase, a single project in this package will spend almost $250 million to subsidize the land purchased by a private entity. They know that the committee had no new money to spend on production agriculture when we started to write this bill. And they will be amazed when they realize that the majority leadership of the House demanded and received $10 billion in new government nutrition programs. They thrived under the flexibility of the last two farm bills. They understand that raising target prices and loan rates is a step back to the old days of Federal Government making planting decisions for them. Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to read between the lines. The elected leaderships of my farm groups back home fear that this is the best that this body is capable of with this House leadership. And they are frightened of all the leading candidates for President. I understand the fear my fellow farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma have for the future of agriculture, and at their request I will vote for this, as we would say back home in Oklahoma, ``half a loaf.'' But this process and this policy, I fear, aren't good for American food producers or American food consumers.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time, if any, I have left.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to this motion. I think my good and dear friends are well intended. I think they believe that they are sincerely trying to do something positive. But I would say to you, this process that we are working through is a complicated, challenging process. Ultimately, the final goal of any farm bill is to take the limited resources that we have and use them in a way to achieve the maximum benefit for our fellow Americans, whether that is enhancing the quality of the environment through the conservation programs, or making sure that the world's safest and yet most affordable food supply continues to be available to everyone. Let's think for a moment about what farm bills represent. The first comprehensive Federal farm bill was not passed until 1933 in the depths of the great economic depression, and, in my region of the country, the great droughts of the 1930s. It was an effort to prevent rural America from disintegrating. It was an effort to make sure that food and fiber remained available to all American consumers at a price that they could afford. We have worked through many policy concepts. We have had many different ways of addressing those needs since 1933. With time, the focus of the farm bill has shifted. In the 1960s it went from being a farmer's farm bill, as the coffee shop folks back home might think of, to being a major player in meeting the nutritional needs of this program. President Kennedy's pilot program on ultimately what became food stamps adopted by President Johnson and this Congress in the 1960s became a major element. But it was an element of the farm bill. In the 1980s, the focus added conservation to that, CRP, EQIP, all of the things that enable farmers, ranchers and property owners to maximize the positive environmental impacts on their property. The farm bill evolved. Where are we right now? We have a bill that is the result of one of the most challenging set of circumstances in decades. We were given the baseline last year to write a farm bill, and for those of you who might not remember what the baseline is, that is simply saying you have the money you had 5 years ago, and not a penny more. And, oh, by the way, inflation has chewed a good bit of that up. Go try and write a bill. Then we were told, shift $4 billion of that from wherever in the bill you want, wherever you can, to the food stamp program, the social nutrition program, the feeding programs. Okay. We worked for months. But as things have gone along, the process has changed. Now, instead of $4 billion, then it was $6 billion, then it was $8 billion. Now I understand we are at $10.6 billion in new social nutrition spending. I don't disagree with that. But when you are not given any new money to start with, when you are placed under a $10 billion mandate, it makes it hard to do all of the things that need to be done with the few precious resources you have. Now we have worked in the most creative way to come up with additional revenue, to reallocate resources to meet that $10 billion mandate from senior leadership in the majority. And along the way we have come up with $4 billion extra for conservation, half of that money going to EQIP, the basic cost share program that everyone has an opportunity to apply for to try and justify the benefits that will be generated from it to have the resources to meet those needs. My friends, I know my colleagues are well-intended. I sincerely believe that. But a farm bill, first and foremost, should be about making sure that every American has access to the safest, highest quality, yes, most affordable food and fiber in the world. Then we can target all of these other programs. Then we can meet all these other needs. Let's don't lose sight of why we have farm bills. Let's not lose sight of who they help, and that is every American that eats, and a good part of the world that depends on us for their food suppliers also. The budget times are tough. The circumstances are difficult. It has been a long and arduous conference. We have yet to produce a final report, which we will all then be able to debate and discuss. But don't direct us in a way that makes the process more complicated when it comes to meeting all of those needs. Don't tie our hands in a fashion that will lead, I am afraid, to a net reduction in the ultimate benefit of those taxpayer dollars, so hard for the taxpayers to come by, that need to be spent so carefully to maximize their return. Let us pursue the agenda of meeting our needs. Witht that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve what time I might have left.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield half of that time to my colleague, Chairman Holden.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I would simply note, one of the challenges of any farm bill, certainly every farm bill since the 1960s, has been the payment limitation issue. Every farm bill we tighten the definition, every farm bill we attempt to reflect the will of this body. We will do that again this time. The question about payment limitations on the conservation programs, that is an inevitable outcome, simply the fact that there will never, ever be enough money to do everything we all want to do. And in a year and a bill when we put 10 billion additional dollars in the nutritional program, no doubt justified, but that was a decision made on high, that makes funding for all these other programs even more challenging. $4 billion in additional conservation spending is an impressive accomplishment in the circumstances we work, but those payment limitations are a necessary thing, just as in conservation as in every other part of the bill to make sure that everyone has a fair and equitable chance at those resources. When you apply for an EQIP program, you have to demonstrate the benefits of that program. And the more beneficial your efforts are, the greater your chances are, the farther up the list you are to be funded. It is a competitive kind of a process. And that is good. But those payment limitations will make sure that more people have an opportunity to step into the process to utilize those funds. We are dealing with the money that has been given to us. We are working under the circumstances that have been laid out, and we are doing the best we can. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I rise in support of the temporary farm bill extension that will extend some of the provisions of the 2002 farm bill so that the conferees can attempt to finalize this bill. I share my colleague's perspective over there. I think progress has been made, and we need to bring this to a conclusion. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this farm bill extension so that that work can be accomplished. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I rise in support of the temporary farm bill extension. It will extend the provisions of the 2002 farm bill an additional week to give our committee more time to finish the farm bill. We continue to work towards an agreement on this very complex piece of legislation. While there is a significant amount of work that has been accomplished, there is more that remains to be done. And the House and Senate conferees have been meeting this week and continue to meet. The staff has worked diligently to bring this bill together. The farm bill is a critical piece of legislation for this country. It's the commodity title, it's the social attrition problems, conservation, rural development and a variety of other things. It is something that must be accomplished and we on the Agriculture Committee, Congressman Holden and myself, take very seriously as we work in that direction.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1118, honoring the life and achievements of John Archibald Wheeler and expressing condolences on his passing. Dr. John Archibald Wheeler, who was one of America's greatest physicists, passed away this last week at the age of 96. Dr. Wheeler's wife of over 70 years passed away in 2007; and he is survived by three children, eight grandchildren, 16 great- grandchildren, six step grandchildren, and 11 step great-grandchildren. What a fruitful life. Dr. Wheeler was a man who was decades ahead of his time. He not only played a key role in the development of the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr, but also became the first scientist to give black holes and wormholes a name. Dr. Wheeler is described as a visionary physicist and teacher. His work on the Manhattan Project in 1941 helped build the atomic bomb. Always seeking answers to the larger questions of the universe, he would spend his time debating the meaning of the quantum theory and the nature of reality with Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. John Archibald Wheeler was born on July 9, 1911, in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Wheeler earned his Ph.D. in physics from Johns Hopkins University at the old age of 21 years. Dr. Wheeler accomplished many things during his lifetime. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was his ability to inspire generations of physicists and scientists through his teachings at Princeton and at the University of Texas, and his constant ambition to answer the greatest questions of the universe. In 1981, Dr. Wheeler wrote: ``We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time; today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.'' Think about that. It is for this constant quest for knowledge that inspired his life and will continue to inspire the American scientific community. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1118. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague in support of H.R. 891, celebrating 35 years of continuous operation of the Federal Government's Earth observing Landsat satellite program. Generations of Landsat satellites have taken and continue to take an uninterrupted record of images of Earth's oceans and lands, enabling resource managers, geologists, climate researchers and scientists to closely monitor land use changes, water consumption, forestry, agricultural and the effects of climate change through the regular acquisition and cataloging of these photographs. This detailed and continuous record of observations offers an unambiguous insight into the changes that are occurring on a global, regional and local scale. Landsat data and the research findings they enable would not be possible without the excellent cooperation and joint management between NASA, who designs, builds and launches the satellites, and the United States Geological Survey and the Department of Interior, who manage the archives of Landsat data at the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archives, what a title, located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Their data records extend back 33 years. The early history of Landsat offers a remarkable insight into the events, culture, personalities and institutional jealousies of the 1960s and 1970s. When our earliest astronauts returned from the Mercury and Gemini missions with photographs of the Earth taken from their spacecraft, scientists and engineers quickly began to envision the value of using robotic spacecraft as a means of monitoring land use changes. However, the Department of Defense initially objected to a space- based civilian reconnaissance satellite out of concern that it would compromise their own spy satellite programs. The Office of Management and Budget also objected, arguing that land use data could be more cheaply acquired by high-flying aircraft. According to NASA historians, then Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, being convinced of the value of space-based civil reconnaissance satellites, announced in 1966 that his department was initiating its own Earth observing satellite program. His pronouncement apparently spurred NASA to take the initiative to proceed in an ambitious manner to build Landsat. Today, Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 continue to operate in Earth orbit, although both are nearing the end of their operational lives and may not last long enough to overlap the launch of their successor in 2011, called the Landsat Data Continuity Mission. If they both fail, the 35 year record of continuous Landsat coverage will be interrupted, and though it will be disappointing, I am optimistic that other methods of data collection will be able to fill in most of the gaps during that interim. The Landsat program's data records are an invaluable national resource. The tenacity and the brilliance of the men and women at NASA, at USGS, and the contractors who helped design, build and launch the satellites, as well as manage the huge volume of data generated by the family of Landsat satellites, have created a legacy that will continue to serve our Nation's needs for many, many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 891. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1112, recognizing 2008 as the International Year of the Reef. For almost 15 years, the United States has been an active participant in the protection of coral reefs around the world. In 1994, the U.S. was one of the founding governments of the International Coral Reef Initiative, ICRI. ICRI is a partnership among governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations that strive to preserve coral reefs and related ecosystems. This year, the U.S. and Mexico share responsibilities for the joint secretariat of the ICRI. The first International Year of the Reef was designated by ICRI in 1997, and this campaign proved to be very successful. Over 225 organizations in more than 50 countries participated and helped raise awareness of the importance of coral reef conservation and catalyzed international conversations and national level policy initiatives. This was certainly true in the U.S.A. when in 1998 an executive order established the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force that led to coordination and the strengthening of U.S. Government actions to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. In 2000, this task force developed the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, a comprehensive strategy to conserve those coral reefs. An example of the commitment of the U.S. Government to such coral reef conservation efforts included the establishment in 2006 of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. President Bush set aside almost 140,000 square miles to receive the most extensive maritime environmental protection permitted under U.S. law. This national monument, which is, by the way, the largest in the U.S., includes a substantial number of coral reefs and related ecosystems. The goals of the 2008 International Year of the Reef campaign include strengthening awareness about the ecology, economic and cultural value of coral reefs; improving understanding of critical threat to reefs and generating both innovative and practical solutions to reduce such threats; and action to develop and implement effective management strategies for conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs. These worthwhile objectives will ensure the continued awareness of the American people in the environments that are not only beautiful, but provide substantial economic benefits. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will lead the U.S. effort on this campaign, and I applaud NOAA's hard work in preserving coral reefs for the enjoyment of future generations. Their dedication does not go unnoticed in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1112. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington, it has indeed been a pleasure to work with, and we have accomplished many things. With that, I would like to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 2571. Madam Speaker, last fall we passed Senate bill 1983, which reauthorized the highly successful Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. That act had been worked on by a number of Members in the House and Senate, including the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. In developing this legislation, we sought the advice and counsel of the administration, the affected industry, and the environmental community. I was very happy to have the unanimous endorsement of all interested parties as we moved forward with that bill. As is not uncommon in working on complex legislation, language is included that is subject to interpretation, and in this particular case we included language intending to maintain an existing fee exemption for certain chemicals that have limited uses on specialty crops. Unfortunately, the EPA has interpreted the final language to mean that they would not be able to continue to offer this exemption. This bill that we are considering today would simply restore the status quo for these chemicals, as was the congressional intent. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. This amendment, I believe, is a threat to producers, consumers and rural America. We must do everything we can to defeat this amendment. The amendment destroys the commodity title, in essence, as we know it. I know it's not as strong as the language they started out with a few days ago, but it starts us down that trail. By cutting the direct payments by 42 percent, by completely revealing, in effect, the counter-cyclical program, this is completely unacceptable and would do more harm to production agriculture than anything I can think of. We in agriculture understand that the commodity title is much more than just producers. It's about providing the American consumer with the highest quality, the safest supply of food and fiber in the history of the world. We have done that. In fact, we in the United States have the most affordable food supply in the world. We Americans spend 10 percent of our disposable income on food, while other countries spend as much as 51 percent on their food. This is no accident. This is because we have created sound agricultural policy over the last 75 years. We have had 10 good years of agriculture policy in particular. We need to continue to build on that. If we can't, well, if we gut the foundation that we have created in past farm bills, then ultimately not only will rural America suffer for this, the American consumer will suffer for this, with higher prices, instability in supply, and that role that we have occupied for a century as the grainery, the reserve food stock for the world, will be gone. I think, I believe, my colleagues are sincere in what they do. But sometimes sincerity does not generate clear, thoughtful, practical policy. Reject their version of sincerity. Let's focus on the policy that has delivered so much to the American consumer and rural America. Reject this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for this effort this evening. I would have never thought that I would be standing on the floor of the United States House advocating ultimately a ``no'' vote on the farm bill. I would have never thought that. As a farmer from Oklahoma, as an individual with a degree in agricultural economics from Oklahoma State, I would have never thought that I would be advocating a ``no'' vote on a farm bill. How did we get to this point? Let's remember, first and foremost, farm bills, while the goal is to help rural America, while the goal is to help make farming and ranching a thriving industry, the real goal is providing the food and fiber supply that feeds and clothes this Nation and the world. And since the 1930s, we have done an exceptional job with these farm bills, an exceptional job, and it has been a nonpartisan, nonpolitical process. We may disagree by region, we might disagree by commodity group, but it was always pulling together for the good of this country and the consumers that we serve around the world. We have now come off of two extremely successful farm bills: the 1996 bill with its dramatic reform, flexibility in production decisions, certainty of payment; the 2002 farm bill, building on that with a safety net. Two very successful farm bills. As a matter of fact, they were so successful that the amount of money set aside for the 2002 farm bill, we spent $60 billion less than was projected, and that was where we got into trouble, and that is what has got us to this point. Sixty billion dollars we saved, and we got not one penny's worth of credit for it. So we began this farm bill process with $60 billion less than we had 5 years ago. That was a decision made by the senior leadership in the new majority. When you are $60 billion down and trying to move successful and popular programs forward, you have got problems. Chairman Peterson worked diligently. The entire committee worked diligently. But, ultimately, when we were not given credit, we had to depend on a massive tax increase.